Dear Authors,

As you can see the reviewers have suggested major revisions to your manuscript. Given the novel concept introduced in your manuscript, I would like to stress that you please take into account all of reviewers suggestions carefully when revising your manuscript. Please also ensure that you make the concepts from the insurance industry easy to follow, and relatable, for the Earth system dynamics community.

I had trouble going through your reply to reviewers comments because the replies were not differentiated from reviewers comments by use of a bold font or different font size/colour. In future, please consider using a bold font for your reply or a different colour. The LaTeX capabilities on the Copernicus platform easily allow to do this.

I look forward to seeing a revised version of your manuscript.

Best regards,
Vivek.

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising your manuscript following the reviewers' comments. Given the nature of comments from both reviewers, I took the time to very carefully go through the entire manuscript myself.

Overall your manuscript now reads much better than before. I have suggested mostly minor, but multiple, changes in the attached annotated PDF file of your manuscript. These are mostly English language related changes. English is not my first language so please use your judgement as well. I think these changes will overall make the manuscript more readable and easy to follow.

There are few places where I have also requested more clarification. I look forward to reading your revised manuscript.

It was difficult for me to suggest changes on a PDF file. Please use the free Adobe Acrobat reader to open the file and then open the "Comments". This will open a panel on the side which will make it easier to see all my comments.

Thanks,
Vivek.

Dear authors,

Thank you for making changes to your manuscript following my comments. As you know, I have been communicating with you outside the ESD system to accelerate resolving issues related to several items in your manuscript. Thank you for your help in resolving these issues. In the attached PDF file you will find these and other minor issues which need your attention.

Please pay close attention to the figures and the issue related to units of p0 and R. I have also suggested to change "ruin" to "collapse" since ruin is a more insurance related word.

Please feel free to contact me outside the ESD system if you have any questions to keep this process moving as fast as we can.

I look forward to reviewing the revised version.

Thanks,
Vivek.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your patience and making changes to your manuscript. As we discussed via email there are still some small issues that need your attention. These are summarized in the attached annotated PDF file.

Also, while one of the reviewers suggested the use of the word "indice", I think such a word doesn't exist in English. As far as I know, plural of index is indices (or indexes). But the word "indice" is incorrect. You may change it now or let the copy-editing folks catch it.

Thanks,
Vivek.

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising your manuscript following my feedback.

It seems you forgot to address two minor points. As far as I know, one normalizes a quantity BY something. So if I divide a quantity by it's mean

x(i)/mean(x)

that is written as

x(i) are normalized BY their mean.

Therefore, in my last review I requested that on line 165 in the latest version of your manuscript you replace "normalized to Rmax" by "normalized by Rmax".

Similarly, on line 395 please replace "normalizes cumulated precipitation and average temperature" by "normalizes cumulative precipitation by average temperature" since in the following

I_DM=P/(T+10)

P is divided by (T+10).

Finally, I think, "cumulated" should be "cumulative" but I will leave that for the copy-editors.

I have suggested these as technical corrections so I don't need to see the manuscript again.

Thank you for your patience through this process.

Best regards,
Vivek.